Interprofessional collaboration in the home care setting: perspectives of people receiving home care, relatives, nurses, general practitioners, and therapists-results of a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: About one million people in need of home care in Germany are assisted by 15,400 home care services. Home healthcare is mostly a complex endeavour because interprofessional collaboration is often challenging. This might negatively impact patient safety. The project interprof HOME aims to develop an interprofessional person-centred care concept for people receiving home care in a multistep approach. In one of the work packages we explored how people receiving home care, relatives, nurses, general practitioners, and therapists (physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and speech therapists) perceive collaboration in this setting. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 people receiving home care and with 21 relatives. Additionally, we worked with nine monoprofessional focus groups involving nurses of home care services (n = 17), general practitioners (n = 14), and therapists (n = 21). The data were analysed by content analysis. RESULTS: Three main categories evolved: "perception of interprofessional collaboration", "means of communication", and "barriers and facilitators". People receiving home care and relatives often perceive little to no interprofessional collaboration and take over a significant part of the organisational coordination and information exchange. Interprofessional collaboration in steady care situations does exist at times and mostly occurs in coordination tasks. Contact and information exchange are rare, however, interprofessional personal encounters are sporadic, and fixed agreements and permanent contact persons are not standard. These trends increase with the complexity of the healthcare situation. Joint collaborations are often perceived as highly beneficial. Means of communications such as telephone, fax, or e-mail are used differently and are often considered tedious and time-consuming. No interprofessional formal written or electronic documentation system exists. Personal acquaintance and mutual trust are perceived as being beneficial, while a lack of mutual availability, limited time, and inadequate compensation hinder interprofessional collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Interprofessional collaboration in home care occurs irregularly, and coordination often remains with people receiving home care or relatives. While this individual care set-up may work sufficiently well in low complex care situations, it becomes vulnerable to disruptions with increasing complexity. Close interactions, joint collaboration, and fixed means of communication might improve healthcare at home. The findings were integrated into the development of the person-centred interprofessional care concept interprof HOME. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered on the International Clinical Trails registry platform ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT05149937 on 03/11/2021.

Cost-effectiveness of a specialist palliative care nurse-patient consultation followed by an interprofessional case conference for patients with non-oncological palliative care needs: results of the KOPAL trial.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, progressive chronic, non-malignant diseases are highly prevalent. Especially with increasing age, they are characterised by high hospitalisation rates and high healthcare costs. Improved interprofessional collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams might reduce hospitalisation while improving symptoms and quality of life, or preventing them from deterioration. The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of a newly developed intervention in patients with advanced chronic, non-malignant diseases consisting of a structured palliative care nurse-patient consultation followed by an interprofessional telephone case conference. METHODS: The analysis was based on data from 172 participants of the KOPAL multi-centre, cluster randomised controlled trial. Patients with advanced congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or dementia were randomised into intervention group (IG) and control group (CG, usual care). Cost-effectiveness was examined over 48 weeks from a societal and healthcare payer's perspective. Effects were quantified as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, EQ-5D-5L). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed. RESULTS: Baseline imbalances in costs and effects could be observed between IG and CG. After adjusting for these imbalances and compared to the CG, mean costs in the IG were non-significantly higher from a societal and lower from a payer's perspective. On the effect side, the IG had marginally lower mean QALYs. The results were characterized by high statistical uncertainty, indicated by large confidence intervals for the cost and effect differences between groups and probabilities of cost-effectiveness between 18% and 65%, depending on the perspective and willingness-to-pay. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study, the cost-effectiveness of the KOPAL intervention was uncertain. The results highlighted (methodological) challenges of economic evaluations in patients with chronic, non-malignant diseases related to sample size, heterogeneity of participants, and the way the intervention effectiveness is typically captured in economic evaluations.